Friday, November 13, 2009

Why should my tax dollars go to this?

In a country in which the federal government wastes and wastes and wastes some more, it can numb us to the little things, but I heard this on the news today and it irritated me to some extent.

Let me get this straight - a repeat sex offender, a dirtbag, tries to commit suicide and the officer of the law stops him? So he can be in critical condition and go to the hospital at many $1000s per day of recovery? Who's paying for this dirtbag to get hospital care and for his long recovery process? When he wanted to die badly enough that he sneaked an exacto knife into a courtroom and tried to stab himself in the neck, multiple times? Come on, think. Personal responsibility. Let him die. I can think of many hundreds of better uses to which my tax dollars could go.

15 comments:

Rholgy,Well I also believe that he should die, but in our country we have this thing called due process. It isn't up to the cop to put him away or ignore his injuries because the dirtbag is a danger to himself.

My point is that, simply because the government wastes money on things that are not worth wasting money on, we should not thus put the debate of whether or not to preserve a human life--if such a thing be possible in any way, including prevention of suicide--in economic terms.

Our time to go is in the hands of God, not our own. God may work through the hands of the state, but an individual taking his own life, vigilante-style, is not good, points to a twisted, dark view of the self within the person, and the need for illumination by the Holy Spirit. The officer's intervention may turn out to be just the act of mercy this particular felon needed to become a righteous thief. Or, perhaps he won't. But simply saying "let him die" by his own hand because he's a "dirtbag" (as opposed to you, oh worm?) is the height of arrogance; your tax dollars are not the determining factor as to whether a beloved creature of God will stand before Him sooner rather than later.

Fair enough.I was more thinking of this along the lines of the concerned taxpayer. Actions have consequences, and some are fatal. But not here - oh no, we'll make sure you stay alive so you can be sure to finish the job next time. One can only hope that, if you do so, you will not have added any more sexual crime to your record.

So "Rho" - you oppose murder - the killing of a human being. I would have to assume that includes suicide which is the killing of ones OWN human being - it's still "murder" in fundamental terms. However you seem to be in favor of permitting a failed attempt at murder simply because the murderer and victim are one in the same person. His/her failed attempt may have been God's Will in their life to give them another chance at salvation, yet you appear to sit in judgment of such a person like Ceasar giving the "thumbs down" to a fallen gladiator who did not quite die in the arena. If a soul is given another chance at life, and it is within society's means of keeping him/her alive - should not society do so?

Well, it obviously was, since it happened.BTW, *I'm* the Calvinist here; why are you jumping into the fray on the "God's sovereignty" side of things? The synergist is supposed to be the one who is all about ratifying the human decision. I'm confused.

to give them another chance at salvation

True.

you appear to sit in judgment of such a person

I've done no such thing. He's already been found guilty multiple times by due process of law. He's not a gladiator, and the crowd wasn't cheering on his death. IOW, it's not analogous in the slightest.And suicide is not a crime that any DA is going to charge against someone, I don't think.

should not society do so?

This is where the libertarian and the theocrat in me get into a fight. I can see your point and I wouldn't say it has no impact on me, but OTOH everyone would be a lot better off if the gov't would stop wasting money left and right, and this isn't a bad place to start.

>> sw: may have been God's Will>> AR: Well, it obviously was, > since it happened. BTW, *I'm* > the Calvinist here; why are you> jumping into the fray on the > "God's sovereignty" side of > things? The synergist is > supposed to be the one who is > all about ratifying the human> decision. I'm confused.

sw: I do not deny God's sovereignty - I just don't see God imposing His Will upon His creation. In short, it could be God's Will that this suicidal person be given another chance and society has the means of saving his/her life... what you're espousing is basically if they attempted suicide then they don't deserve that second chance.

>> sw: to give them another >> chance at salvation>> AR: True.>>> sw: you appear to sit in >> judgment of such a person>> AR: I've done no such thing.

sw: Yes, you've deemed this suicide attempt should equate to a death sentence - even if society has the means to save his/her life.

> AR: He's already been found > guilty multiple times by due > process of law.

sw: And this time his guilt was violation of his parole, does that sound like a capital offense to you? It was "bad" - he was caught downloading child porn again and lying to his parole officer - so he deserved to have parole revoked, but you seem to be equating those violations to a crime deserving capital punishment. Last I checked, there was no "due process" which calls for the death penalty for that which he was accused.

> AR: He's not a gladiator, and > the crowd wasn't cheering on his > death. IOW, it's not analogous > in the slightest.

sw: I said you were acting LIKE Ceasar, deciding the "thumbs down" on this criminal. It does seem like you are like the crowd cheering for his death - so to say it's not analogous in the slightest isn't quite true from where I sit.

> AR: And suicide is not a crime > that any DA is going to charge > against someone, I don't think.

sw: The point is the morality of keeping him alive vs. letting him die when you could save him.

>> sw: should not society do so?

> AR: This is where the > libertarian and the theocrat in > me get into a fight. I can see > your point and I wouldn't say it > has no impact on me, but OTOH > everyone would be a lot better > off if the gov't would stop > wasting money left and right, > and this isn't a bad place to > start.

sw: I appreciate your candor, and I can't say there aren't parts of me which agree with what you're saying as well. I sensed a conflict/contradiction - and you seem to be confirming that.

I think you're making disanalogous statements.None of us deserve ANY chance. Sometimes we don't get a 2nd one, especially speaking within the context of society and lawbreaking.

This isn't a death SENTENCE or penalty at all. This is a self-inflicted action. Actions have consequences. With all the many, many other things and people who need monetary help out there and who are more deserving, why waste it on this creep?

I still maintain there's a moral dilemma here. Regardless if this guy initiated the attempted suicide himself - the fact is, he didn't die and it is within "society's" ability to "save" him. In such a situation, is it OK to start making arbitrary decisions on who is more important or more deserving to live? He may be a "creep" - as you say, but how far do you go in making or allowing others to make decisions on who lives and who dies?

You're right, it is perhaps more difficult than I gave it credit for in the OP. I'd disagree that it's arbitrary, though. "...a long history of sex offenses."

We can argue all day long that society "should" save him, but why? And there are plenty of "society should ____"s out there; I'd put "blowing $100K or more of taxpayer money on a guy who has a long history of sex offenses" pretty dang low on the list.

True, but his "offenses" this time were downloading pictures on his computer (a violation of his parole) and lying to his parole officer. So regardless of his past, this time around the charges do not merit a death sentence. He likely fears going back to prison because sex offenders are the low-man on the totem pole. His troubles are his own doing... he made this bed which he now has to lay in - and I'll leave it at that.